Parallel
מנחות 18
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
R. Judah is of the opinion that only in the other cases do they differ, but in the case of ‘leaving’ all agree that it is invalid, the reason being that we must declare the offering invalid [in the case where the intention was in respect of leaving] part of the blood [for the morrow] as a precautionary measure against [an intention of leaving] all the blood [for the morrow], and [an intention of leaving] all the blood [for the morrow] renders the offering invalid by Biblical law. For it was taught: Said R. Judah to them, ‘You would agree with me, would you not, that if he actually left [the blood] for the morrow the offering is invalid? Then even where he intended to leave it for the morrow it is also invalid’. R. Eleazar then comes to tell us that even in this case, R. Eliezer declares it to be invalid and the Sages declare it to be valid. Is then R. Judah of the opinion that in the case where there was an intention of leaving part of the blood for the morrow all agree that it is invalid? But it has been taught: Rabbi said, When I went to R. Eleazar b. Shammua’ to have my learning examined (others say: To sound the learning of R. Eleazar b. Shammua’). I found there Joseph the Babylonian sitting before him. Now he [Joseph] was very dear to him. He [Joseph] then said to him, ‘Master, what is the law if one slaughtered an offering intending to leave the blood for the morrow?’ ‘It is valid’, he replied. In the evening he again replied. ‘It is valid’. On the next morning he again replied. ‘It is valid’ — At midday he again replied. ‘It is valid’ In the afternoon he replied. ‘It is valid, but R. Eliezer declares it to be invalid’. Thereupon Joseph's face lighted up. Said to him [R. Eleazar], ‘Joseph, it seems to me that our traditions did not correspond until now’ — ‘Quite so, Master’, he replied. ‘quite so. For R. Judah had taught me the view that it was invalid; and when I sought out all his disciples so as to find a supporter of this view, I could not find any. But now that you have taught me the view that it is invalid, you have thus restored to me what I had lost’. Thereupon the eyes of R. Eleazar b. Shammua’ streamed with tears and he exclaimed, ‘Happy are ye, O scholars, to whom the words of the Torah are so dear!’ He then applied to him [Joseph] the following verse: ‘O how I love thy law! It is my meditation all the day. For it was only because R. Judah was the son of R. Ila'i, and R. Ila'i was the disciple of R. Eliezer that he [R. Judah] taught you the view of R. Eliezer.’ Now if it be assumed that [R. Judah] taught that all hold it is invalid, then what did he [Joseph] mean when he said ‘You have thus restored to me what I had lost’? He [R. Eleazar b. Shammua’] had only told him [in the end] that there was a difference of opinion in the matter! — What then would you say? That he [R. Judah] taught him ‘It is valid, but R. Eliezer declares it to be invalid’! If so, why the expression ‘For it was only because’? We also learnt [from R. Eleazar b. Shammua’] that there was a difference of opinion in the matter! — We must indeed say that he [R. Judah] taught him that all hold it is invalid; but what did he [Joseph] mean by saying, ‘You have thus restored to me what I had lost’? He meant that he had brought the view ‘it is invalid’ to light. MISHNAH. IF HE DID NOT POUR IN [THE OIL], OR IF HE DID NOT MINGLE IT, OR IF HE DID NOT BREAK UP [THE MEAL-OFFERING] IN PIECES, OR IF HE DID NOT SALT IT, OR WAVE IT, OR BRING IT NIGH, OR IF HE BROKE IT UP INTO LARGE PIECES, OR DID NOT ANOINT IT [WITH OIL], IT IS VALID. GEMARA. What is meant by HE DID NOT POUR IN [THE OIL]? Shall we say that he did not pour in [any oil] at all? But Scripture has indicated that this is indispensable! — We must say therefore that it means, the priest did not pour in [the oil] but a non-priest did. If so, the next item HE DID NOT MINGLE IT, would also mean, the priest did not mingle it but a non-priest did; from which it follows that if it was not mingled at all it would be invalid,
—
but we have learnt: Sixty [tenths] can be mingled together but not sixty-one. And when we were considering this [and it was asked], What does it matter if they cannot be mingled together? Have we not learnt: IF HE DID NOT MINGLE IT . . . IT IS VALID? R. Zera answered, Wherever proper mingling is possible the mingling is not indispensable, but wherever proper mingling is not possible the mingling is indispensable? — Is this an argument? Surely this has its own meaning and that has its own meaning. The item HE DID NOT POUR IN means, the priest did not pour in [the oil] but a non-priest did; whereas the item HE DID NOT MINGLE IT means, it was not mingled at all. OR IF HE BROKE IT UP INTO LARGE PIECES. But surely if where he did not break it up at all it is valid, is it then necessary to state [that it is valid if he broke it up into] large pieces? — The expression ‘LARGE PIECES’ really means many pieces. Or, if you will, I may say that actually large pieces were meant, [nevertheless it had to be stated in our Mishnah]. For you might have thought that only there [is it valid] since they retain the character of cakes, but [not] here since they are neither cakes nor crumbs. We are therefore taught [that here, too, it is valid]. Shall we say that our Mishnah is not in agreement with R. Simeon? For it was taught: R. Simeon says, A priest who does not believe in the service has no portion in the priesthood, for it is written, He among the sons of Aaron, that offereth the blood of the peace-offerings, and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a portion; that is to say, if he believes in the service he has a portion in the priesthood, and if he does not believe in the service he has no portion in the priesthood. Now I know it only of this [service stated in the verse], but whence do I know it also of the fifteen services, viz., pouring in [the oil], mingling, breaking it up, salting it, waving it, bringing it nigh, taking the handful, burning it, nipping off [the head of a bird-offering], receiving [the blood], sprinkling it, giving the water to a woman suspected of adultery, breaking the heifer's neck, purifying the leper, and raising the hands in blessing both within [the Temple] and without? The verse therefore adds, ‘Among the sons of Aaron’, that is, all services that are entrusted to the sons of Aaron; and the priest who does not believe in it has no portion in the priesthood! — There is no difficulty, said R. Nahman. There it deals with the meal-offering of a priest, here with the meal-offering of an Israelite. In the case of the meal-offering of an Israelite, from which the handful must be taken, the duty of the priesthood begins with the taking out of the handful; we thus learn that the pouring in [of the oil] and the mingling are valid [even though performed] by non-priests. In the case of the meal-offering of a priest, from which the handful is not taken, the services of the priesthood are required from the very beginning. Thereupon Raba said to him, Just see, whence do we deduce that the rite of pouring in the oil applies also to the meal-offering of a priest? From the meal-offering of an Israelite, do we not? Well, as there [the pouring in] may be performed by a non-priest, in this case too it may be performed by a non-priest! (Others have the following version. There is no difficulty, said R. Nahman. Here it deals with meal-offerings from which the handful is taken, there with meal-offerings from which the handful is not taken. Thereupon Raba said to him, Just see, whence do we deduce that the rite of pouring in the oil applies also to meal-offerings from which the handful is not taken? From those meal-offerings from which the handful is taken, do we not? Well then they must be like unto those from which the handful is taken, and as in the latter case [the pouring in] may be performed by a non-priest, here too it may be performed by a non-priest!) — Obviously, then, our Mishnah is not in agreement with R. Simeon. What is the reason of the Rabbis? — It is written, And he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon. And he shall bring it to Aaron's sons the priests; and he shall take thereout his handful. From the taking of the handful and onwards is the function of the priesthood; we thus learn that the pouring in [of the oil] and the mingling are valid [even though performed] by non-priests. And R. Simeon? — [He says,] The Scriptural expression ‘Aaron's sons
—